Molecular biology comprises a wide variety of techniques for the analysis of nucleic acid and protein, many of which form the basis of clinical diagnostic assays. These techniques include nucleic acid hybridization analysis, restriction enzyme analysis, genetic sequence analysis, and separation and purification of nucleic acids and proteins (See, e.g., J. Sambrook, E. F. Fritsch, and T. Maniatis, Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, 2 Ed., Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y., 1989).
Most molecular biology techniques involve carrying out numerous operations (e.g., pipetting) on a large number of samples. They are often complex and time consuming, and generally require a high degree of accuracy. Many a technique is limited in its application by a lack of sensitivity, specificity, or reproducibility. For example, problems with sensitivity and specificity have so far limited the application of nucleic acid hybridization.
Nucleic acid hybridization analysis generally involves the detection of a very small numbers of specific target nucleic acids (DNA or RNA) with probes among a large amount of non-target nucleic acids. In order to keen high specificity, hybridization is normally carried out under the most stringent condition, achieved through a combination of temperature, salts, detergents, solvents, chaotropic agents, and denaturants.
Multiple sample nucleic acid hybridization analysis has been conducted on a variety of filter and solid support formats (see G. A. Beltz et al., in Methods in Enzymology, Vol. 100, Part B, R. Wu, L. Grossmam, K. Moldave, Eds., Academic Press, New York, Chapter 19, pp. 266-308, 1985). One format, the so-called “dot blot” hybridization, involves the non-covalent attachment of target DNAs to a filter, which are subsequently hybridized with a radioisotope labeled probe(s). “Dot blot” hybridization gained wide-spread use, and many versions were developed (see M. L. M. Anderson and B. D. Young, in Nucleic Acid Hybridization—A Practical Approach, B. D. Hames and S. J. Higgins, Eds., IRL Press, Washington D.C., Chapter 4, pp. 73-111, 1985). It has been developed for multiple analysis of genomic mutations (D. Nanibhushan and D. Rabin, in EPA 0228075, Jul. 8, 1987) and for the detection of overlapping clones and the construction of genomic maps (G. A. Evans, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,219,726, Jun. 15, 1993).
Another format, the so-called “sandwich” hybridization, involves attaching oligonucleotide probes covalently to a solid support and using them to capture and detect multiple nucleic acid targets. (M. Ranki et al., Gene, 21, pp. 77-85, 1983; A. M. Palva, T. M. Ranki, and H. E. Soderlund, in UK Patent Application GB 2156074A, Oct. 2, 1985; T. M. Ranki and H. E. Soderlund in U.S. Pat. No. 4,563,419, Jan. 7, 1986; A. D. B. Malcolm and J. A. Langdale, in PCT WO 86/03782, Jul. 3, 1986; Y. Stabinsky, in U.S. Pat. No. 4,751,177, Jan. 14, 1988; T. H. Adams et al., in PCT WO 90/01564, Feb. 22, 1990; R. B. Wallace et al. 6 Nucleic Acid Res. 11, p. 3543, 1979; and B. J. Connor et al., 80 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA pp. 278-282; 1983).
Using the current nucleic acid hybridization formats and stringency control methods, it remains difficult to detect low copy number (i.e., 1-100,000) nucleic acid targets even with the most sensitive reporter groups (enzyme, fluorophores, radioisotopes, etc.) and associated detection systems (fluorometers, luminometers, photon counters, scintillation counters, etc.).
This difficulty is caused by several underlying problems associated with direct probe hybridization. The first and the most serious problem relates to the stringency control of hybridization reactions. Hybridization reactions are usually carried out under the most stringent conditions in order to achieve the highest degree of specificity. Methods of stringency control involve primarily the optimization of temperature, ionic strength, and denaturants in hybridization and subsequent washing procedures. Unfortunately, the application of these stringency conditions causes a significant decrease in the number of hybridized probe/target complexes for detection.
The second problem relates to the high complexity of DNA in most samples, particularly in human genomic DNA samples. When a sample is composed of an enormous number of sequences which are closely related to the specific target sequence, even the most unique probe sequence has a large number of partial hybridizations with non-target sequences.
The third problem relates to the unfavorable hybridization dynamics between a probe and its specific target. Even under the best conditions, most hybridization reactions are conducted with relatively low concentrations of probes and target molecules. In addition, a probe often has to compete with the complementary strand for the target nucleic acid.
The fourth problem for most present hybridization formats is the high level of non-specific background signal. This is caused by the affinity of DNA probes to almost any material.
These problems, either individually or in combination, lead to a loss of sensitivity and/or specificity for nucleic acid hybridization in the above described formats. This is unfortunate because the detection of low copy number nucleic acid targets is necessary for most nucleic acid-based clinical diagnostic assays.
Because of the difficulty in detecting low copy number nucleic acid targets, the research community relies heavily on the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for the amplification of target nucleic acid sequences (see M. A. Innis et al., PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications, Academic Press, 1990). The enormous number of target nucleic acid sequences produced by the PCR reaction improves the subsequent direct nucleic acid probe techniques, albeit at the cost of a lengthy and cumbersome procedure.
A distinctive exception to the general difficulty in detecting low copy number target nucleic acid with a direct probe is the in-situ hybridization technique. This technique allows low copy number unique nucleic acid sequences to be detected in individual cells. In the in-situ format, target nucleic acid is naturally confined to the area of a cell (˜20-50 μm2) or a nucleus (˜10 μm2) at a relatively high local concentration. Furthermore, the probe/target hybridization signal is confined to a morphologically distinct area; this makes it easier to distinguish a positive signal from artificial or non-specific signals than hybridization on a solid support.
Mimicking the in-situ hybridization, new techniques are being developed for carrying out multiple sample nucleic acid hybridization analysis on micro-formatted multiplex or matrix devices (e.g., DNA chips) (see M. Barinaga, 253 Science, pp. 1489; 1991. W. Bains 10 Bio/Technology, pp. 757-758, 1992). These methods usually attach specific DNA sequences to very small specific areas of a solid support, such as micro-wells of a DNA chip. These hybridization formats are micro-scale versions of the conventional “dot blot” and “sandwich” hybridization systems.
The micro-formatted hybridization can be used to carry out “sequencing by hybridization” (SBH) (see M. Barinaga, 253 Science, pp. 1489, 1991; W. Bains, 10 Bio/Technology, pp. 757-758, 1992). SBH makes use of all possible n-nucleotide oligomers (n-mers) to identify n-mers in an unknown DNA sample, which are subsequently aligned by algorithm analysis to produce the DNA sequence (R. Drmanac and R. Crkvenjakov, Yugoslav Patent Application #570/87, 1987; R. Drmanac et al., 4 Genomics, 114, 1989; Strezoska et al., 88 Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 10089, 1991; and R. Drmanac and R. B. Crkvenjakov, U.S. Pat. No. 5,202,231, Apr. 13, 1993).
There are two formats for carrying out SBH. The first format involves creating an array of all possible n-mers on a support, which is then hybridized with the target sequence. The second format involves attaching the target sequence to a support, which is sequentially probed with all possible n-mers. Both formats have the fundamental problems of direct probe hybridizations and additional difficulties related to multiplex hybridizations.
Southern, United Kingdom Patent Application GB 8810400, 1988; E. M. Southern et al., 13 Genomics 1008, 1992, proposed using the first format to analyze or sequence DNA. Southern identified a known single point mutation using PCR amplified genomic DNA. Southern also described a method for synthesizing an array of oligonucleotides on a solid support for SBH. However, Southern did not address how to achieve optimal stringency condition for each oligonucleotide on an array.
Fodor et al., 364 Nature, pp. 555-556, 1993, used an array of 1,024 8-mer oligonucleotides on a solid support to sequence DNA. In this case, the target DNA was a fluorescently labeled single-stranded 12-mer oligonucleotide containing only nucleotides A and C. 1 μmol (˜6×1011 molecules) of the 12-mer target sequence was necessary for the hybridization with the 8-mer oligomers on the array. The results showed many mismatches. Like Southern, Fodor et al., did not address the underlying problems of direct probe hybridization, such as stringency control for multiplex hybridizations. These problems, together with the requirement of a large quantity of the simple 12-mer target, indicate severe limitations to this SBH format.
Concurrently, Drmanac et al., 260 Science 1649-1652, 1993, used the second format to sequence several short (116 bp) DNA sequences. Target DNAs were attached to membrane supports (“dot blot” format). Each filter was sequentially hybridized with 272 labeled 10-mer and 11-mer oligonucleotides. A wide range of stringency condition was used to achieve specific hybridization for each n-mer probe; washing times varied from 5 minutes to overnight, and temperatures from 0° C. to 16° C. Most probes required 3 hours of washing at 16° C. The filters had to be exposed for 2 to 18 hours in order to detect hybridization signals. The overall false positive hybridization rate was 5% in spite of the simple target sequences, the reduced set of oligomer probes, and the use of the most stringent conditions available.
Fodor et al., 251 Science 767-773, 1991, used photolithographic techniques to synthesize oligonucleotides on a matrix. Pirrung et al., in U.S. Pat. No. 5,143,854, Sep. 1, 1992, teach large scale photolithographic solid phase synthesis of polypeptides in an array fashion on silicon substrates.
In another approach of matrix hybridization, Beattie et al., in The 1992 San Diego Conference: Genetic Recognition, November, 1992, used a microrobotic system to deposit micro-droplets containing specific DNA sequences into individual microfabricated sample wells on a glass substrate. The hybridization in each sample well is detected by interrogating miniature electrode test fixtures, which surround each individual microwell with an alternating current (AC) electric field.
Regardless of the format, current micro-scale DNA hybridization and SBH approaches do not overcome the underlying physical problems associated with direct probe hybridization reactions. They require very high levels of relatively short single-stranded target sequences or PCR amplified DNA, and produce a high level of false positive hybridization signals even under the most stringent conditions. In the case of multiplex formats using arrays of short oligonucleotide sequences, it is not possible to optimize the stringency condition for each individual sequence with any conventional approach because the arrays or devices used for these formats can not change or adjust the temperature, ionic strength, or denaturants at an individual location, relative to other locations. Therefore, a common stringency condition must be used for all the sequences on the device. This results in a large number of non-specific and partial hybridizations and severely limits the application of the device. The problem becomes more compounded as the number of different sequences on the array increases, and as the length of the sequences decreases. This is particularly troublesome for SBH, which requires a large number of short oligonucleotide probes.
Nucleic acids of different size, charge, or conformation are routinely separated by electrophoresis techniques which can distinguish hybridization species by their differential mobility in an electric field. Pulse field electrophoresis uses an arrangement of multiple electrodes around a medium (e.g., a gel) to separate very large DNA fragments which cannot be resolved by conventional gel electrophoresis systems (see R. Anand and E. M. Southern in Gel Electrophoresis of Nucleic Acids—A Practical Approach, 2 ed., D. Rickwood and B. D. Hames Eds., IRL Press, New York, pp. 101-122, 1990).
Pace, U.S. Pat. No. 4,908,112, Mar. 13, 1990, teaches using micro-fabrication techniques to produce a capillary gel electrophoresis system on a silicon substrate. Multiple electrodes are incorporated into the system to move molecules through the separation medium within the device.
Soane and Soane, U.S. Pat. No. 5,126,022, Jun. 30, 1992, teach that a number of electrodes can be used to control the linear movement of charged molecules in a mixture through a gel separation medium contained in a tube. Electrodes have to be installed within the tube to control the movement and position of molecules in the separation medium.
Washizu, M. and Kurosawa, O., 26 IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications 6, pp. 1165-1172, 1990, used high-frequency alternating current (AC) fields to orient DNA molecules in electric field lines produced between microfabricated electrodes. However, the use of direct current (DC) fields is prohibitive for their work. Washizu 25 Journal of Electrostatics 109-123, 1990, describes the manipulation of cells and biological molecules using dielectrophoresis. Cells can be fused and biological molecules can be oriented along the electric fields lines produced by AC voltages between the microelectrode structures. However, the dielectrophoresis process requires a very high frequency AC (1 MHz) voltage and a low conductivity medium. While these techniques can orient DNA molecules of different sizes along the AC field lines, they cannot distinguish between hybridization complexes of the same size.
As is apparent from the preceding discussion, numerous attempts have been made to provide effective techniques to conduct multi-step, multiplex molecular biological reactions. However, for the reasons stated above, these techniques have been proved deficient. Despite the long-recognized need for effective technique, no satisfactory solution has been proposed previously.